Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Another Girlguiding update

556 replies

AgnesBadenPowell · 22/07/2018 21:48

I've been a bit quiet lately. I'm under investigation, which I can't discuss in any detail, although my membership is now at risk. In the meantime, I'm still a leader and Girlguiding has not changed its stance on trans issues. The following is a bit of a stream of consciousness but I'm feeling quite troubled by it and need to let it out! I'd also be interested in what parents of rainbows think.

I took my rainbows on a sleepover this weekend. It was great! It also really bought home to me the risks posed by the trans policy. I feel quite upset and tearful about it.

We had 20 rainbows in a church hall. Three women leaders, including me, also slept in the main hall - at one end, out of the way, with our own sleeping mats and bags etc - but in the same room. The other women leaders slept in an adjoining room (more of a lobby really).

The adults used the gents toilets and the girls used the ladies and disabled facilities. Despite this some girls weren’t too bothered and just changed in the hall! One nosy rainbow followed me into the gents - luckily I was only brushing my teeth and not changing - and of course I shooed her out.

How would a set up like this (which is pretty common) work with a trans child or adult? We could look for new venues with more rooms/options but Girlguiding’s stance is that the trans child and adult should use the facilities of their chosen gender. And if parents aren’t aware of the single gender/mixed sex policy, they aren’t in a position to complain or take their children out.

On a personal note, the two other leaders in the hall are women that I don’t know very well. One of them I’ve only met once before, she’s a brownie leader who came to help so we met our ratios. My sleeping mat was right next to hers as there wasn’t much space. It was fine but I could not have done this with a self identified (ie male at birth) transwoman. I don’t know any woman who would feel safe sleeping right next to a male bodied person they had only met once before. And I should never, ever be expected to do so. For all the make up, dresses, female names, most transwomen do not have bottom surgery and retain their male genitalia. I would never be expected to share sleeping accommodation with a man I don’t know (or even ones I do - I’m not sharing a room with my male colleague on a business trip next week) so why would it be acceptable in Girlguiding, provided the male said he feels female?

It really hit home that it’s only fair and reasonable to expect people of the same sex to share spaces like this. I really don’t want to make trans people feel bad or left out - but my dignity, my girls dignity and privacy, is every bit as important as theirs.

OP posts:
scotsheather · 19/09/2018 18:39

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356075/Teenage-boy-wanted-join-Girl-Guides-accuses-organisation-sexual-discrimination-turned-away.html

And in 2018 that boy might be considered trans as he "doesn't really like boys stuff" and "gets on better with girls" (oh and objects to boundaries that don't suit boys).

JellySlice · 19/09/2018 22:11

The problem lies in GGUK describing themselves as a "girl-only organisation", and then swallowing the huge lie that anyone can be a girl just by saying so.

Were GGUK always a girl-only organisation? Did they ever refer to themselves as a female-only organisation?

Do our UK laws differentiate clearly between female and girl/woman (not that they should!)

Ereshkigal · 19/09/2018 22:15

Girlguiding's statement implies that they cannot legally exclude a male bodied trans person from a female space as this would be discriminatory. This is ridiculous. Why do they think these exceptions (in primary legislation) exist in the first place?

This is what they will have been told by lobby groups and even wokesters within the organisation itself.

HawkeyeInConfusion · 19/09/2018 22:16

I am reading Timothy Snyder's book 'on tyranny'. It lists twenty rules to prevent tyrannical regimes taking hold.

Chapter 1 is 'Do not obey in advance'.

GGUK is obeying in advance. It shows the activists that organisations (that really should know better) are willing to compromise on their safeguarding obligations. Activists are seeing these ill-thought acts of anticipatory obedience and it is giving them confidence to push forward at an ever increasing pace.

We need these organisations to say 'no'. No, what you are asking is not in the interests of the people we have responsibility for. No, what you are asking is wrong and WE WILL NOT DO IT.

We need these organisations to show the courage and integrity to stand up to these bullies.

GGUK has failed in its duties.

They will not be forgiven by those they have let down.

Ereshkigal · 19/09/2018 22:16

Did they ever refer to themselves as a female-only organisation?

I'm pretty sure I've seen them refer to themselves as such in terms of membership. Because I commented at the time that the person writing didn't understand the difference between sex and gender identity.

Ereshkigal · 19/09/2018 22:17

Great post, Hawkeye.

JellySlice · 19/09/2018 22:21

Anyone have any hardcopy with GGUK referring to itself as female-only?

Might be interesting to ask them why they changed, and whether, had they remained female-only, they would have continued to exclude male-bodied people.

Ereshkigal · 19/09/2018 22:43

It was relatively recently, in a job ad, if I'm remembering correctly. It said something like "we only have female members but all genders are welcome to apply for this job in head office" (paraphrasing, but female was there in some way)

ChattyLion · 19/09/2018 23:30

Their charitable aims (under which they are regulated by the charity Commission- so GGUK staff or a Trustees really can’t just decide to do something else Hmm) are:

Aims & activities
TO PROMOTE THE EDUCATION OF GIRLS AND YOUNG WOMEN TO HELP THEM DEVELOP EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY, PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THEIR COMMUNITY AND THE WIDER WORLD.

beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=306016&subid=0

It feels really like sleight of hand for GGUK (without consulting their volunteers or members or clarifying with the charity commission to legally change the statement above), to have just decided that actually girls and women can be of either sex but has to be conforming to feminine stereotyping.

Furthermore the logical conclusion of their baffling and very unpleasant policy of managing out girlGuides who (...under whose interpretation I don’t know..) don’t identify as girls/young women any more. This is seemingly notwithstanding the kid’s own wishes on the matter. How can GGUK claim these GNC girls or young women are NOT girls’young women?- which legally they are, unless they have a GRC. Which seems to be only available from about a minimum age of about 20years old?

And anyway since the relevant person remains biologically female however they present themselves, so that female, GNC guide wanted to stay in Guides I can’t see how they can be legally stopped from staying on, on that basis.

It’s very hard to follow the logic here though.

WrongOnTInternet · 20/09/2018 03:29

Just before it vanishes off the pages, I came across this story about how annual research for girlguiding reveals how unsafe girls feel in Britain outside their homes.

On the plus side, girls 'are responding more robustly'. www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45562134

They deserve better than to be sold down the river to the TRA lobby.

KipperTheFrog · 20/09/2018 06:54

I was a female scout, the first in our village scout troop. Tents were single sex in camping trips. I successfully navigated many years without issue.
Now DD1 is of an age we're looking into beavers vs rainbows for her. Due to her temperament and personality we feel a single sex environment would be better. So looks like we're out of options!
agnes I sincerely hope you are successful in your efforts to get some clarity with this bizarre policy. And I hope you are not forced out of GG. GG needs people like you!

Ereshkigal · 21/09/2018 14:52

Did they ever refer to themselves as a female-only organisation?

I'm pretty sure I've seen them refer to themselves as such in terms of membership. Because I commented at the time that the person writing didn't understand the difference between sex and gender identity.

Update on my earlier post - the linked thread has another job ad with the same wording:

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3371771-does-this-mean-guiding-could-have-a-man-as-ceo

NothingOnTellyAgain · 21/09/2018 16:40

"Did they ever refer to themselves as a female-only organisation?"

I highly doubt that when Agnes Baden-Powell set up The Girl Guides in 1910 as an answer for Girls to the successful groups for Boys set up by her brother (The Boy Scouts), she has penis people in mind as the people who were expected to join.

I mean WTF.

The current leadership have taken her legacy and wiped their arses on it.

NothingOnTellyAgain · 21/09/2018 16:45

I also read that job ad and would go as far as saying that they are SPECIFICALLY looking for a transwoman or penis possessing "non binary" person to be the next CEO to "triple down" (is that a thing?) on their TWAW TGAG tomboys can fuck off and so can girls from any more fundamental or traditional jewish / christian etc groups (lots around here) and also muslim and ?other religions (dont' know enough about them but not mixing sexes for private stuff is present in most I think).

there is no basis in law to have a single gender org either they are discriminating on the grounds of religion AND sex (why some boys / girls OK but others must leave / not allowed to join? Only single SEX exemptions exist).

averylongtimeago · 21/09/2018 16:53

That was my thought as well.
Pippa Bunce anyone?

NothingOnTellyAgain · 21/09/2018 17:11

Yes Pips would be awesome.

They could introduce a new badge "Standing like "I'm a little teapot" to show you're girl".

NothingOnTellyAgain · 21/09/2018 17:12

How about David Challenor?

Under the trans umbrella, experience with scouts, gymnastics teams. Also has a lot of free time at the moment, could work remotely.

NothingOnTellyAgain · 21/09/2018 17:18

Thinking some more about experts in safeguarding, how about Jess thingy?

An awesome example of female sexual empowerment who can advise the girls how to deal with the inevitable slut shaming when they express their natural wholesome female sides by wanking their penis at bus stops.

Jess spoke to the government about trans issue & safeguarding I believe, so is a great candidate.

They could also pick, erm, forget the name. The one who could teach the girls a thing or two about why extreme porn needs to be legalsied?

Or the one who says girls should "get tits early and suck cock"?

They have all had prominient voices around trans issues, how TWAW, TGAG, and why any male who says "I'm a female" needs to be allowed entry to everything for females immediately no questions asked.

Any one of those would be up GG street.

Maybe they will find someone just as good instead, who knows.

averylongtimeago · 21/09/2018 17:22

I think the one who likes extreme porn has had some input, but tbh I can't remember where I read that. I will have to check later....

When I have finished cooking...,

Ereshkigal · 21/09/2018 17:27

^That was my thought as well.
Pippa Bunce anyone?^

He's already advised them after all.

OldCrone · 21/09/2018 17:34

I think the one who likes extreme porn has had some input, but tbh I can't remember where I read that.

I'm not sure if Jane Fae has confirmed this.

twitter.com/tempie321/status/1039150025849417728

OldCrone · 21/09/2018 17:35

Should have said I'm not sure if GG have confirmed Jane Fae's input.

averylongtimeago · 21/09/2018 17:47

Well they have been asked. Do we take their silence as assent?

NothingOnTellyAgain · 21/09/2018 17:54

OK so GG are taking advice from them. Fucking hell I was joking...

Anyone got a link to the article they wrote explaining how awesome pornography that includes stuff like causing permanent or serious harm to someone is, why it is totally normal to watch it, and why it should be legal?

OK this is not funny.

You'd think that orgnisations who are trusted with people's kids would be a bit more careful about who they talk to.

Have they been involved with the freebason's bloke, or his "nonbinary" partner who has worked closely and written papers with someone who believe that "intergenerational" sex is the most oppressed of the sexualities?

I ask as it seems to be the same people advising multiple orgs / producing policy / talking to governmetn and they are all dodgy as fuck not to put too fine a point on it.

SwiftNC · 21/09/2018 17:59

They replied by stating they based their policy on feedback from members who were concerned about inclusion & speaking to "experts from the field" - no denial they've been in discussion with Fae, Fae has failed to deny it also, instead has engaged in a discussion under GG's response regarding his book on "...the evolution of censorship in the UK in relation to sex and sexuality..." which is definitely the discussion to be had on a thread questioning Fae's suitability as an "expert in the field" where safeguarding young girls is the priority.

Swipe left for the next trending thread